Funding Proposal Sparks Tension Between NYC Bishop and Trinity Church
A major funding proposal in the Episcopal Diocese of New York has set off one of the most visible disagreements between diocesan leadership and Trinity Church, one of the wealthiest congregations in the nation. The diocese recently approved a new Common Mission Share plan designed to address long standing financial instability by recalibrating parish contributions based on size and resources. While most churches would see reduced assessments, Trinity’s annual contribution would more than double, accounting for an estimated sixty percent of the diocese’s budget over the next decade. The bishop described the change as essential to correcting systemic issues that have affected congregations across the region, some of which have struggled with declining attendance, limited revenue and aging infrastructure. Trinity leadership, however, has stated that the model threatens rather than strengthens long term sustainability. Despite expressing support for broader diocesan reform, they have made clear that they will not follow the new formula and intend to maintain their current level of giving while continuing their charitable commitments to the wider New York community.
The disagreement reflects deeper questions about governance, shared mission and financial responsibility within an increasingly strained religious landscape. Attendance data show that the diocese has experienced significant decline over the past decade, paralleling national trends in mainline Protestant denominations. Smaller parishes have faced growing difficulty supporting clergy salaries, maintaining historic buildings and sustaining outreach ministries. The bishop argued that the new model is necessary to address inequities in the previous structure, noting that many parishes carrying unpaid assessments were barred from applying for grants that might have supported their ministries. As part of the new plan, those arrears were forgiven, which diocesan leadership has framed as an act of reconciliation intended to reset relationships and enable congregations to rebuild. Yet the proposal’s reliance on a dramatic increase from Trinity has raised questions about whether one parish can or should be expected to shoulder such a disproportionate share of diocesan operations. Leaders at Trinity insist that while collaboration is essential, financial restructuring must be accompanied by an organizational strategy capable of addressing long term structural weaknesses.
Both supporters and critics of the plan agree that the current funding system no longer reflects the realities faced by New York churches. The bishop emphasized that nearly eighty percent of delegates supported the proposal and described it as a fair approach to redistributing obligations based on parish capacity. Trinity’s representatives counter that shifting so much responsibility to a single congregation risks diverting resources from programs that serve the broader community and undermines trust between parishes. Their public statements reiterate willingness to partner in diocesan reform but reject the expectation of contributing more than double their current level without a comprehensive plan to address underlying challenges. The ongoing discussion highlights the broader pressures confronting historic religious institutions as they navigate demographic decline, financial uncertainty and the need to create sustainable frameworks for mission in rapidly changing urban environments.
